AP Gov: Foundational Court Cases

Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

Background: "enemy combatants" held in Guantanamo Bay were denied due process-- they were not allowed to hear what information was being used against them Ruling: Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have a right to habeas corpus, even if the prisoner is not a citizen nor within the technical jurisdiction of the United States Precedent: GB is under exclusive jurisdiction and control of the US so the right to habeas corpus is upheld; habeas corpus petitions from GB go straight to the federal judges (suspicions of the quality of evidence provided by the government) *Part VI of Title 28 (US Code that governs federal judicial system);

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

Background: A religion whose rituals sometimes demand animal (in this case, chickens) sacrifice, was planning on locating at a church in Hialeah, FL. The city council then quickly adopted several ordinances prohibiting possession of animals for sacrifice/slaughter. Ruling: The city laws directed at animal sacrifice as part of the Santeria religion violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Precedent: Ordinances must have a compelling governmental interest and cannot target a specific faith or suppress religious practice. *1st (free exercise)

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)

Background: ACLU sued three KY counties for displaying copies of Ten Commandments in courthouses and public schools; ACLU argued the displays violated the First Amendment's establishment clause; The district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the displays violated the establishment clause. Ruling: the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion. In the case of each of the displays, the Court held, an observer would have concluded that the government was endorsing religion Precedent: upholds the idea of separation of church and state. The government must remain neutral on the topic of religion. The government cannot favor belief over nonbelief *1st (establishment)

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

Background: After Civil Rights Act of 1964, motel owner still refused to rent rooms to black patrons; he argued that the requirements of the CRA exceeded Congressional authority over interstate commerce Ruling: Congress could use their powers under the commerce clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Precedent: Places of public accommodation must abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 *5th Amendment does not forbid reasonable regulation of interstate commerce, and incidental damage did not constitute the "taking" of property without just compensation or due process of law

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Background: After the Second Bank of the United States was chartered, a branch was opened in Baltimore, Maryland. Maryland then passed a law taxing all banks that were not chartered by the Maryland legislature. James McCulloch, head of the Baltimore branch of the Second BUS, refused to pay the fine. Ruling: Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacked the power to tax the Bank Precedent: States cannot tax the federal government. Congress has implied powers. *10th Amendment

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Background: Allen Bakke had applied twice to UC-Davis Med School, and was rejected twice. The school reserved 16 places in the entering class of 100 for qualified minorities, as part of the University's affirmative action program. Bakke's GPA/Test scores/qualifications exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted both years. He contended, first in the CA courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. Ruling: Bakke was ordered admitted to UC Davis Medical School, and the school's practice of reserving 16 seats for minority students was struck down Precedent: Legalized the use of affirmative actions, but invalidated the use of racial quotas. (In Peck's words: Affirmative action is okay, as long as there's no quota that allows some students to fall below the line. It can be used when candidates are "roughly equal") *14th

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Background: As a suspect in the murder of his brother-in-law, the petitioner Danny Escobedo asked to speak with his lawyer while in police custody but before being formally charged and was denied; If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police without their request to see an attorney being honored, nor being advised of their right to remain silent, have they been denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment? Ruling: ruled in favor of Escobedo; Where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel, his statements to police are excluded Precedent: A person must be granted a right to counsel when they are subject to interrogation *6th Amendment

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

Background: Before home varsity football games, a student would deliver an overtly Christian player at Santa Fe High School. People then filed suit against this, stating that it violated their First Amendment rights, especially pertaining to the Establishment Clause. Ruling: The policy of the school district of "permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at public high school football games violates the establishment clause" Precedent: The state cannot force sponsored religious activity on its citizens. There is no clear separation of church and state as required by the Constitution. *1st (establishment)

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Background: Benjamin Gitlow was charged with criminal anarchy because his socialist writing violated the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 Ruling: The Court upheld the conviction - the acts did not violate the 1st amendment Precedent: Court reviewed a state law on the basis that it violated the Bill of Rights; started the process of Incorporation, where every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to states *1st Amendment (speech) and 14th

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

Background: Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts stating that they had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation." Ruling: A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership though their 1st amendment right to freedom of association, in spite of state anti-discrimination laws Precedent: Gives groups the right to choose their own members. This also gives way to the exclusions that may be present in private organizations; however, not public. *1st (assembly/association)

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Background: Brandenberg (a KKK leader) made a speech at a Klan rally and was convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law stated that advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" in addition to assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons for to teach or advocate the doctrines of syndicalism" was illegal Ruling: Court delivered a per curiam (issued from the Court collectively rather than authored by a single justice) that the government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation Precedent: gov't can't punish inflammatory speech unless the speech is directed to incite or will likely incite imminent; struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute; Created the "imminent lawless action" test--for judging what was referred to as "seditious speech" under the 1st amendment *1st Amendment (speech)

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)

Background: California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 with the Compassionate Use Act, but this act was directly in conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which made possession of marijuana illegal. The DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) seized doctor prescribed marijuana from Raich's (the patient) house, but the doctors sued the DEA Ruling: ruled that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the ability to prohibit and criminalize marijuana even if state legislation, such as the Compassionate Use Act, permits for the usage of medical marijuana. Precedent: Congress has the power to regulate local/intrastate activities that may impact interstate activities *10th Amendment and Commerce Clause

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

Background: Chaplinsky verbally attacked a town marshal and was arrested due to a New Hampshire law that prevents offensive speech. He appealed his arrest Ruling: The Court upheld the arrest because fighting words were not protected by the 1st amendment Precedent: "Fighting words" can be limited *1st Amendment (speech)

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones (1937)

Background: Charges brought against Jones & Laughlin Steel Company claimed company discriminated who wanted to join the Steel Workers Organizing Committee (the company had fired 10 employees after they moved to unionize) Ruling: Court ruled in favor of employees; Chief Justice Hughes: "Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control" Precedent: Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate labor relations *Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes")

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Background: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Charles W. Baker felt as though his district was underrepresented as the Tennessee district lines had not been redistricted since 1901. Ruling: The Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. Federal Courts are able to intervene in and decide redistricting cases. Precedent: Brennan concluded that the 14th Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. *14th (equal protection)

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Background: Citizens United produced a film called Hillary: The Movie and it was a conservative review about Hillary Clinton that was going to be aired before the Democratic Primaries. However, it was illegal to do so under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which was enforced by the FEC. Some of these restrictions by the BRCA were due in part to restrict campaign contributions. Ruling: under the "First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited." Precedent: Money equates to speech in terms of political campaigns, and since political speech is not limited, money spent on political elections cannot be limited, even to a corporation or a union (as long as it is independent and doesn't coordinate directly with the campaign) *1st Amendment (expression/speech)

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Background: Clarence Earl Gideon (Florida) was charged with breaking and entering into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor which all together was a felony under FL state law. Gideon showed up in court without a lawyer and asked judge to appoint counsel because he couldn't afford one. At that time FL law only required the appointment of a lawyer for a capital case. Gideon represented himself in court and was found guilty and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Gideon then argued that his right to be represented in court under the constitution had been denied Ruling: The court unanimously decided in favor of Gideon; decided that the constitution meant to protect the right of defendants to have counsel; state courts have to provide attorneys for defendants Precedent: Requires states to provide court-appointed counsel to indigent criminal defendants *6th Amendment (Right to Counsel and Procedural Due Process)

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Background: Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment. Ruling: First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed. Precedent: Press cannot be censored by federal gov't unless there is malicious intent behind it. Expands upon precedent in Near v. Minnesota. *1st (press)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Background: Does segregation of public educational facilities based on race violate equal protection? Different facilities were built for whites and "colored" that the government maintained was "separate, but equal. Ruling: The court ruled that "separate but equal" educational facilities were inherently unequal Precedent: Gets rid of separate but equal doctrine; begins integration of school systems *14th

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856)

Background: Dred Scott, a slave, claims that his residency in a free state makes him a free man; is he free or slave? And can he even sue in federal court? Ruling: The Court ruled that he was not free, nor was he a citizen. It ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Precedent: Means that Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional, reaffirms that slaves are property, slavery can exist anywhere *5th Amendment and MO Compromise were used to justify ruling--would be superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments, but 13th and 14th Amendments did not exist at this time

Texas v. Johnson (1990)

Background: During protest against Reagan administration, Gregory Johnson publicly burned the American flag on steps of Dallas City Hall Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Johnson. It is protected under the first amendment as a form of free speech. The state's interest in preserving a flag as a symbol of nationhood doesn't justify conviction (Justice Brennan) Precedent: case resulted in battle lines being drawn between those in Congress who wanted to amend the Constitution to permit restraints on flag desecration and those who supported new legislation rather than the constitutional amendment SYMBOLIC SPEECH IS PROTECTED *1st Amendment (speech)

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Background: During the 2000 presidential election a recount was halted because it was using a different method of recounting Ruling: ruled that Florida Supreme Court's recount order was unconstitutional because it granted more protection to some ballots than others. So George W. Bush became the de facto winner because they were not able to recount the votes within the time limit Precedent: Inconsistent evaluation standards in different counties violated the equal protection clause *14th Amendment

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

Background: During the Civil War, President Lincoln's administration wanted the power of military commission jurisdiction (basically the military tribunals), which was part of his controversial plan to deal with Union dissenter's during the war. This case stemmed from the trail of three men by a military commission. The charges against the men included conspiracy, offering aid to the Confederates, and inciting rebellion. It became unclear if the the US Constitution prohibits civilians from being tried by military commission and was passed to the SCOTUS. Ruling: "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails," and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown Precedent: Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is constitutional only when there is no power left but the military, and the military may validly try criminals only as long as is absolutely necessary. *5th Amendment

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

Background: During the Korean War, US steel workers went on strike. Truman seized the production facilities in order to avoid inflationary pressure. Steel companies thought this was unconstitutional Ruling: the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. Because the act was not authorized by Constitution and law-making abilities are given to Congress, not the President. Precedent: President cannot do some things without Congressional approval. Exercises of any governmental power must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. *Article 2, Section 3

Rasul v. Bush (2006)

Background: Four British and Australian citizens were captured by the American military in Pakistan or Afghanistan; were transported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; families filed suit in federal district court seeking a writ of habeas corpus that would declare the detention unconstitutional--claimed that the government's decision to deny the men access to attorneys and to hold them indefinitely without access to a court violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause; gov't countered that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the prisoners weren't American citizens and were being held in territory over which the United States did not have sovereignty (the Guantanamo Bay base was leased from Cuba indefinitely in 1903, and Cuba retains "ultimate sovereignty") Ruling: Court found that the degree of control exercised by the United States over the Guantanamo Bay base was sufficient to trigger the application of habeas corpus rights; right to habeas corpus can be exercised in "all ... dominions under the sovereign's control." Precedent: US courts have jurisdiction to consider legal appeals filed on behalf of foreign citizens held by the United States military in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba (U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned) *Habeas corpus (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2)

Korematsu v. US (1944)

Background: Fred Korematsu defied Executive Order 9066 and did not go to a Japanese internment camp because he said it violated the 5th amendment. Ruling: Justified internment of Japanese-Americans because we were in a state of "emergency and peril" Precedent: Supreme Court shows deference to Congress and the military authorities, especially during wartime. *5th

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Background: Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. The men were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct (sodomy) Ruling: Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment Precedent: Overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) by invalidating sodomy laws in Texas and 13 other states *14th Amendment (Due Process) and 9th Amendment

U.S. v. O'Brien (1968)

Background: In 1948 the US issued the Selective Service Act, which required all men to register for the draft. All men were required to carry the card with them at all times and a 1965 amendment made it a separate crime to knowingly mutilate the card. On the day in question in 1966, O'Brien and three other men burned their cards on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse Ruling: although O'Brien tried to say that the 1965 amendment was only passed to stop anti-Vietnam War protests, Court said that this type of speech was damaging to the government and was noncommunicative Precedent: Certain types of noncommunicative free speech are allowed to be regulated if they become a hinderance to government and its ability to carry out basic functions *1st Amendment (speech)

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)

Background: Jehovah's Witnesses were assembled at their church where they were divided into smaller groups--continued to march along sidewalks and hand out papers promoting an upcoming meeting; issue arrived when the smaller groups began to interfere with normal traffic; The Witnesses were convicted for violating a NH state law which prohibited processions on public property without a license. The witnesses said their right to freedom or worship and assembly was taken away. Ruling: supported NH's previous decision that speech should be limited to areas that do not disrupt the general public. They also ruled that NH's statute was used fairly originally. Precedent: Federal Government cannot regulate what people say, but they do have some control over the time, place, and manner of speech. 1st (assembly/association)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Background: John Adams nominated several new justices right before the end of his presidency. John Marshall (JA's Sec. of State) didn't deliver the commissions before Jefferson's presidency began. Jefferson told his Sec. of State, James Madison, not to deliver them either, to ensure his choices instead. Madison was sued by JA's nominated plaintiffs for neglecting his Constitutional duty by refusing to deliver the commissions. Ruling: the plaintiffs did have the right to receive the commission, and they were allowed to sue because of Madison's failure to deliver them. The Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to order the delivery of their commission. Precedent: judicial review! *Article 3, sec 2, clause 2 - Judicial Review

Barron v. Baltimore (1834)

Background: Joseph Barron co-owned a wharf in Baltimore. Due to the cities expansion and construction, the sand level rose, making his wharf unprofitable. He sued the state for the financial losses citing the fifth amendment Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of the City of Baltimore citing that the states are not held responsible for just compensation in cases of eminent domain because the fifth amendment is made for the federal government Precedent: The Bill of rights does not restrict the power of the states *5th Amendment (Eminent Domain)

US v. Nixon (1974)

Background: Judge Sirica ordered Nixon to turn in tapes relating to the Watergate scandal. Nixon's attorney argued that the judicial branch should not have power in this case and that Nixon had absolute executive privilege to protect communications between government officials. Ruling: The Court decided unanimously against Nixon Precedent: Limited the power of the President. President is not immune from judicial process *Article 2

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)

Background: Lillian and William Gobitis were expelled from the public schools of Minersville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to salute the flag as part of a daily school exercise. The Gobitis children were Jehovah's Witnesses; they believed that such a gesture of respect for the flag was forbidden by Biblical commands.Did the mandatory flag salute infringe upon liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Ruling: ruled in favor of Minersville; mandatory flag salute and recitation of the pledge was upheld over personal religious objection by Jehovah's Witness families, students, and teachers. The Court held that the state's interest in "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values" and that national unity was "the basis of national security." Precedent: later overturned by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) *1st Amendment (free exercise)

U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Background: Lopez brought a gun into school, and was charged on a state level for carrying a firearm into a public school. These charges were dropped in place of charges on the federal level in violation of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may allow Congress to overstep its bounds in regulating interstate commerce. Ruling: The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity. Precedent: Public schools are now able to restrict weapons because there is no compelling economic state interest in allowing them there. *2nd Amendment

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Background: Louisiana enacts a law requiring segregated railway cars; man takes a seat in the white section; does the law violate equal protection? Ruling: The Court ruled that separate but equal facilities do not violate equal protection. Precedent: Means that segregation is okay *14th Amendment (equal protection/substantive due process)

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Background: Louisiana had a partial monopoly in the slaughtering business and only gave to one company. Competitors argued they had been denied equal protection of the law and deprived of liberty/property without due process. Ruling: The court decided the claim of "involuntary servitude" didn't limit one's right to use property. The creation of the monopoly did not violate the 14th Amendment. Precedent: The 14th Amendment protects the privileges and immunities of citizenship of the United States (federal government), not the privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state. *14th

McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)

Background: McCutcheon (from AL) donated to the RNC, other Republican committees, as well as individual candidates. He wished to donate more in amounts that would be permissible under the base limit (restrictions on how much money a contributor—defined broadly as individuals, partnerships, and other organizations—may give to specified categories of recipients) but would violate the aggregate limit on political donations (the amount an individual can donate in a two-year election cycle) under the BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act- established two sets of limits to campaign contributions ). He believed that this limit violated the 1st Amendment's right to free speech and failed to serve a "cognizable governmental interest." Ruling: Aggregate contribution limit to campaign finance was unconstitutional because it did not stop corruption and limited involvement in the democratic process Precedent: Restrictions on campaign donations curtail the right to free speech *1st Amendment (expression/speech)

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)

Background: Michael Newdow's daughter attended school in Elk Grove (CA); Newdow was also divorced from wife, however, and did not have custody of his daughter; his daughter's school began day by reciting Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God"; Newdow sued, arguing that making students listen to words "under God" violated Establishment Clause of 1st Amendment Ruling: A noncustodial parent did not have standing in federal court to allege that his child's school violated the Establishment Clause by leading students in the recital of the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; the issue of whether "one nation under God" is constitutional, however, was not ruled on. However, 3 dissenting justices found that Newdow did have standing to bring the suit and found that "under God" did not offend the Constitution. Precedent: Although not the official court ruling, the dissenting opinions offer compelling evidence that "under God" does not violate the 1st Amend, that the pledge is a secular act rather than an indoctrination in religion *1st (establishment)

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Background: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape Ruling: The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his or her rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded Precedent: suspects must be informed of Miranda rights *5th Amendment (protection against self-incrimination) and 14th Amendment

Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party (1977)

Background: National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) asked for permission to march through Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish community (originally, they had asked for permission to march through Marquette Park, Chicago, but Chicago authorities blocked these plans); On behalf of NSPA, the ACLU challenged the injunction that prohibited marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas; challengers argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves Ruling: ruled in favor of the NSPA and the Illinois Supreme Court violated the 1st amendment rights of the NSPA by allowing the injunction; ruled that the swastika itself is a symbolic form of free speech and does not constitute "fighting words" Precedent: First amendment rights can be stretched to include speech that may be seen as offensive *1st (speech, assembly)

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Background: Near was publishing malicious articles about other people which violated a Minnesota law that could ban malicious articles Ruling: Near could not be censored Precedent: Press can not be censored *1st (press)

Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

Background: Nebraska state Sen. Chambers sued in federal court claiming that the legislature's practice of opening sessions with a prayer offered by a state-supported chaplain was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. (Does paying a chaplain for religious services using taxpayer dollars violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?) Ruling: government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. The chaplaincy practice had become "part of the fabric of our society" and this practice of prayer was "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." Precedent: Justice Brennan (dissenting) points out that this ruling clearly violates the Lemon Test; Overturned in part by Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) *1st (establishment)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Background: Oregon prohibits possession of controlled substances without a prescription. Peyote is on the list of controlled substances. Respondent, a member of the Native American Church was fired from his job for using peyote as part of a religious ceremony. Respondent then filed for unemployment benefits but was denied because of his "misconduct." Ruling: Smith was denied unemployment benefits because he used peyote (illegal drug) as part of his religion. Free exercise of religion does not preclude adherence to valid, nondiscriminatory laws and regulations Precedent: Religious practices can be limited when they interfere with a law. The use of drugs in a religious practice is illegal despite its religious affiliation. *1st (exercise)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Background: Outside of the Texas capital building was a site that contained 17 monuments. Each monument represented something in connection with Texas's history. One of those statutes had the Ten Commandments in its entirety on it. This display was challenged on the presence of the issue of whether every public display holding religious context must pass the lemon test in order to not violate the Establishment clause Ruling: Displays that have both religious and governmental significance will not be held to violate the Establishment Clause Precedent: Religious elements that serve a valid secular purpose do not represent a government endorsement of religion and therefore do not violate the 1st amend's establishment clause *1st (establishment)

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Background: PA and RI adopted laws that allowed the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. The PA law provided funding for non-public elementary and high school teachers' salaries, textbooks, etc. for secular subjects; RI's provided state funding for non-public elementary schools by supplementing 15% of teachers' annual salaries. Lemon believed this violated the separation of church and state. Ruling: Pennsylvania's nonpublic elementary and secondary act was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Precedent: Lemon Test 1) Statute must have a secular legislative purpose 2) principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice 3) the statute must not result in "excessive government entanglement" with religious affairs *1st Amendment (Establishment Clause)

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Background: Police go to a woman's (Mapp's) house looking for illegal gambling paraphernalia, but instead find pornography. They arrest her for possessing pornography, even though that was not allowed under the warrant. Additionally, the search was admittedly illegal. Ruling: The Court found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment Precedent: Exclusionary rule incorporated at the state level *4th Amendment (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Background: Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life Ruling: State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy. Precedent: women have a constitutional right to an abortion up until the end of the 1st trimester (moment of quickening); after that the State may have compelling interest to regulate the abortion procedure (however, life of woman supercedes life of fetus) *14th Amendment (Due Process) and 9th Amendment (the court used the rationale of the 14th)

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

Background: Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur, was captured by Afghan forces and imprisoned by the US military in Guantanamo Bay. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge his detention. Before the district court ruled on the petition, he received a hearing from a military tribunal, which designated him as an enemy combatant. District court granted Hamdan's habeas petition, ruling that he must first be given a hearing to determine whether he was a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention; DC Circuit Court of Appeals reversed decision.... Ruling: Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay were illegal and lacking the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. Precedent: " " *Writ of habeas corpus

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

Background: Schenck distributed leaflets to draft-age men urging them to petition for repeal of the draft Ruling: Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war. Precedent: Invented the "clear and present danger" test *1st Amendment (speech)

McConnell v. FEC (2003)

Background: Sen. McConnell and others argued that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 infringed on their 1st Amendment rights; BCRA included a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties, limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election, and restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures") Ruling: narrowly upheld the "soft money" ban because the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption" that might result from those contributions Precedent: Government has an interest in preventing political corruption or even the appearance of corruption. Restrictions on political speech are justified by this interest. 1st Amendment (expression)

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Background: Senator Buckley and others sued the FEC because of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which regulated federal campaign contributions and spending. The case came in the wake of the watergate affair. The goal of the act was restrict contributions to campaigns. Ruling: upheld some federal limits on campaign contributions, but held unconstitutional expenditures limits--1) restrictions on indiv. contributions to campaigns/candidates did not violate 1st Amendment since the limitations of the FECA guard against unscrupulous practices; 2) gov't restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from own personal/family resources, and limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the 1st Amendment Precedent: Money is expression. Can restrict how much a single person contributes to a campaign in order to prevent corruption, but candidate and independent spending cannot be limited. *1st Amendment (freedom of expression/speech/association)

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Background: The Connecticut Comstock Act of 1879 made it illegal to use "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. PPLC Executive Director Estelle Griswold and Dr. Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven and are arrested Ruling: Court found that the Connecticut statute was unconstitutional Precedent: Married couples have the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices; privacy is in the penumbra of the law *9th Amendment

New York Times v. US (1971)

Background: The New York Times and the Washington post were publishing classified information, President Nixon tried to stop them from publishing it because of Executive Branch Secrecy. Ruling: Court ruled in favor of the New York Times being able to publish the material. Precedent: Freedom of the Press is higher than Executive secrecy. (Think Edward Snowden) *1st (press)

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Background: The State of New York gave Aaron Ogden exclusive rights to operate steamboat ferries in the Hudson river. Gibbons rode ferries there claiming that he had this right due to a 1793 act of congress Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Gibbons saying that Ogden's grant was unconstitutional Precedent: Congress has the power to control any commerce if it is related to many states (i.e. minimum wage in a factory if the products are shipped to another state) *Article 1, Section 8

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)

Background: The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all public schools. All teachers and pupils were required to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as "insubordination" and was punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency (particularly problematic for Jehovah's Witnesses) Ruling: The free speech clause of the 1st amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the pledge of allegiance; overturned Minersville v. Gobitis Precedent: " " *1st Amendment (free speech and freedom of religion)

NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

Background: The state of Alabama demanded all names and addresses of the members of the NAACP residing in Alabama. Ruling: NAACP members have a right to "pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others; this right is further protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment", and further, that freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the "advancement of beliefs and ideas" is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment Precedent: Restrictions on freedom of association are unconstitutional *1st (assembly/association)

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Background: Witnesses were convicted for pushing religion in a heavily catholic area without a religious solicitation license - Witnesses said that a license dependent on state determination of religion was not right Ruling: The free exercise clause of the 1st amendment is incorporated against the states by the 14th amendment Precedent: Made it legally clear that the 1st Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal *1st Amendment (free exercise); 14th Amendment

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Background: Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen, was detained by US military in Afghanistan; he was declared an "enemy combatant," and was held in Guantanamo Bay; upon learning he was a US citizen, he was transferred to a military prison in VA; Hamdi filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, argued that gov't violated his 5th Amendment due process rights by detaining him indefinitely and not giving him access to an attorney or trial Ruling: rejected the government's argument that the separation-of-powers prevents the judiciary from hearing Hamdi's challenge; Hamdi had the right to challenge in court his status as an enemy combatant Precedent: gov't can detain enemy combatants including US citizens, but those who are citizens must be given rights of due process and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authorites; detainees had the right of habeas corpus to challenge their detention *5th Amendment (Procedural Due Process); Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 (writ of habeas corpus)

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Background: Yoder, Miller, and Yutzy are Amish; Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law required them to send their kids to public or private school until they reach 16; they declined to send their children to public school after completion of the eighth grade. The issue became whether the application of the compulsory attendance law violate respondent's rights Ruling: A parent's fundamental right to freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating its children. Found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade Precedent: Established a port from which many other religious parenting cases were launched (note, Lemon v. Kurtzman emphasized the State enforcing minimal education standards) *1st (exercise) and 14th Amendments

Rex v. Zenger (1735) *not a Supreme Court case

Background: Zenger printed information about the governor of New York which hurt him and was arrested and jailed for it Ruling: Could not be found guilty because what he printed was true Precedent: Press can publish even mean articles about people as long as they are true *Constitution did not exist at this time

Miller v. California (1973)

Background: a man sent out very graphic sexual pamphlets and a local family complained about the content Ruling: Court redefined its definition of obscenity to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" Precedent: Miller Test: 1) Violates contemporary community standards 2) If it appeals to a primarily prurient interest 3) Lacks any artistic, literary, or scientific value; For it to be pornography, it has to violate ALL 3 parts of the test *1st Amendment (speech)

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Background: students wanted to protest the war so they put black armbands on to protest the war so they were sent home by the administration for violating the school rule against armbands Ruling: The rules created by the administration violated the students rights to free speech Precedent: Students do not have to forfeit their rights when they enter the school. Speech can be restricted depending on how it violates a normal day in school. *1st Amendment (speech)